After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The resolution authorizes the president to undertake war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates without Congressional approval. Since 2001 the law has been used to approve military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Proponents argue that the law is necessary to give the President the powers to act quickly in order to prevent another terrorist attack on the U.S. Opponents argue that all U.S. military conflicts should have Congressional approval and this act has been used in military conflicts that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
No, and end all war involvement
Yes, I’m the case of a time sensitive emergency.
No, must be approved by Sean Polley.
No, the balance of power would be upset, and we would have a Vietnam problem again.
I would not trust the safety and security of any persons with Congress. Everything turns into a fight with party lines drawn. At the same time, one man (President) should probably not have unchecked power to send our military into conflict...whether that conflict is a traditional war or non-traditional.
Yes, only when it comes to time limited situations, such as verified locations of high level targets.
I do not think the president or congress should have as big of a role in deciding if we attack al queda.
yes only when necessary and with good intentions
yes and no, it will depend on the situation
NO, That is REQUIRED of Congress to do so ACCORDING to Article IV Section 4 Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 1.
Yes, but add some boundaries
It's within his powers so like can't fo much here
I think there should be checks and balances on this because the president could easily say something is related to terrorist attacks
The president should be able to act to defend the country, but not attack until congress decides
Based on immediate threat
The President has the right to do this without Congressional approval but I don't think its correct.
To protect US interests, property or US citizens the President should be able to act immediately. To go to war the President should need Congressional approval.
Military force should never be used.
Yes if congress approval would take too long.
The president and Congress should work together
Yes, but only small-scale operations that don't require long-term deployments of troops. Anything over 1 week should require congressional authorization.
Yes but only for drastic circumstances
Their should be more than one individual handeling a situation like this as well as agreeing to a situation like this because whether we like it or not their are consequences.
No, Congress should have the opportunity to vote before authorization of military force. However, there should be a time limit and if not met the President can authorize.
President shouldn't be able to declare war, but should be able to do limited action
Yes, but not if the action could potential force a declaration of war.
Normally I’d say no but we don’t have a functional Congress
Yes, as long as it adheres to the War PowerS Act
The president should be able to take immediate action, but anything requiring prolonged military action should be approved by Congress.
yes but only if they try to strike first
Depends on the situation. In general no, but in an emergency, yes.
No, but Congress should issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against non-state terrorist and criminal organizations.
Yes, if in an emergency situation
For a limited duration.
I honestly think this polarized view on one leader. And Democrat or republican is so old and polarized. I think the people should really have a say as a whole
Yes, only if lives are at stake, not for individual benefit; otherwise, congress should approve of attack operations so the individual benefit cannot occur.
no, we shouldn't be in any war period. just killing innocent lives on both sides in the process
No because it would increase the Presidents power between the 3 between branch’s of government but congress in my opinion holds more power so I would still keep it for congressional approval
Yes because Congress takes too long to take action, this is one instance where quicker decision making is needed
Only If American lives are in immediate danger of death, then yes.
Only in times of national security
constitution allos the president to aend troops anywhere in the world for 90 days without approval. aftrr that yes.
While the president has power he can’t just do whatever he wants whenever. The top military officials as well as congress should be involved in decision making to this degree
If there is a threat overseas and Congress continues to opt out, the president should make the decision.
No, the president is supposed to act as a leader and one thing he must learn to do is share the power which includes any authorization. Plus we should have Congressional approval to avoid the misuse of power and inaccurate decisions.
Yes the president should and already has the authority to do any kind of action against Al-Qaeda terrorist groups or anyone as a threatening American citizens our way of life and also our allies. The Congress is job is for any military matter is to add a opinion on it they do not have and should not have a right to have any say so in military comfort flex when they don’t do that their main goal it was supposed to be advising not controlling
The president should have limited powers in the use of large scale military action, but Congress should have to approve any prolonged engagement over 120 days or so.
Do not know this either
Situational dependent. If immediate threat is imminent yes. If not, use military generals to come up with decision.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
